Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 22 Dec '11 15:41 / 1 edit
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2011/12/16/60-minutes-broadcast-edits-out-laughable-obama-claim-4th-greatest-presi

    When will Americans learn? Obama is the 4rth greatest President in history, at least in terms of foriegn policy. At least, according to Barak Obama himself. Obama makes the claim in an interview with Steve Kroft of 60 minutes.

    Obama: "The issue here is no gonna be a list of accomplishments. As you said yourself, Steve, you know, I would put our legislative and foreign policy accomplishments in our first 2 years against any president -- with the possible exceptions of LBJ, FDR, and Lincoln -- just in terms of what we have done in modern history. But you know, but when it comes to the ecdonomy, we have got a lot more work to do. And we are gonna keep at it."

    So my question is, why did 60 minutes edit out this little clip of the 4 rth greatest president of all time? Are they in denial as are most Americans? In fact, if you want to see the clip you can only see it at 60 Minutes Overtime where they have a video of the entire exchange.

    In short, are those at 60 Minutes racist Tea loving bigots? It's the only explanation Whodey has. In fact, how does Obama stand a chance next election with this apparent organized effort against him from the press. Disgusting!!!
  2. 22 Dec '11 20:33
    Originally posted by whodey
    http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2011/12/16/60-minutes-broadcast-edits-out-laughable-obama-claim-4th-greatest-presi

    When will Americans learn? Obama is the 4rth greatest President in history, at least in terms of foriegn policy. At least, according to Barak Obama himself. Obama makes the claim in an interview with Steve Kroft of 60 minutes.

    O ...[text shortened]... election with this apparent organized effort against him from the press. Disgusting!!!
    I don't know why that one was edited out. Probably there was about an hour of it edited out, and you have to make your choices.

    But I disagree with Obama. He is ahead of LBJ. LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam, helped overthrow a democratically elected government in the Dominican Republic, assisted fascism in Brazil and Zaire, and destroyed the Alliance for Progress. At best he stood by while the right wing Junta in Indonesia massacred a million. I'm trying to think of anything which can be considered a foreign policy success.

    I might replace him with Truman. Or Washington.
  3. 22 Dec '11 20:44
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    I don't know why that one was edited out. Probably there was about an hour of it edited out, and you have to make your choices.

    But I disagree with Obama. He is ahead of LBJ. LBJ escalated the war in Vietnam, helped overthrow a democratically elected government in the Dominican Republic, assisted fascism in Brazil and Zaire, and destroyed the Alliance f ...[text shortened]... an be considered a foreign policy success.

    I might replace him with Truman. Or Washington.
    But Truman deployed those nasty nukes, and Washington owned slaves. One hundred people randomly chosen, I doubt you'ld find a single duplicate list of the four top Presidents.

    It is striking the arrogance of a sitting President to place himself in the top four over the other 40 predecessors to the job.
  4. 22 Dec '11 22:56
    Originally posted by normbenign
    But Truman deployed those nasty nukes, and Washington owned slaves. One hundred people randomly chosen, I doubt you'ld find a single duplicate list of the four top Presidents.

    It is striking the arrogance of a sitting President to place himself in the top four over the other 40 predecessors to the job.
    Owning a slave is not foreign policy. I just like the concept of avoiding too many entanglements, particularly of a military variety. We didn't invade anybody under his reign.
  5. 22 Dec '11 23:05
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    . We didn't invade anybody under his reign.
  6. 22 Dec '11 23:13 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    I don't understand this either. Bush never made a mistake so why is he not the top 1, 2, 3, and 4? After all, he and Cheney killed Bin Laden with their bare hands and tortured their way thru at least 4 prison's worth of dangerous bad guys. They killed the number 2 guy at least 150 times. I also hear that 24 series was completely based on a glorious moment that Bush and Cheney spent together in the oval office toilet.

    Maybe if Obama had more orange alerts?
  7. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    23 Dec '11 07:41
    Originally posted by normbenign
    One hundred people randomly chosen, I doubt you'ld find a single duplicate list of the four top Presidents. It is striking the arrogance of a sitting President to place himself in the top four over the other 40 predecessors to the job.
    One hundred people randomly chosen currently, I'd bet, would include him among the top four presidents with regards to foreign policy achievements, simply because his work is the freshest on everyone's mind. And Obama did not "place himself in the top four over the other 40 predecessors to the job" on every issue; he did so, again, with regards to foreign policy achievements.
  8. 23 Dec '11 07:50
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    One hundred people randomly chosen currently, I'd bet, would include him among the top four presidents [b]with regards to foreign policy achievements, simply because his work is the freshest on everyone's mind. And Obama did not "place himself in the top four over the other 40 predecessors to the job" on every issue; he did so, again, with regards to foreign policy achievements.[/b]
    Where does Nixon rank on "foreign policy achievements"?
  9. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    23 Dec '11 08:30
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Where does Nixon rank on "foreign policy achievements"?
    Don't you mean Kissinger?
    And I reckon the answer is: "war criminal".
  10. 23 Dec '11 08:46
    Originally posted by shavixmir
    Don't you mean Kissinger?
    And I reckon the answer is: "war criminal".
    How was Nixon a war criminal ?
  11. Standard member shavixmir
    Guppy poo
    23 Dec '11 09:55
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    How was Nixon a war criminal ?
    Did I say Nixon?
    However, since he was in power at the time:

    - The bombing of Cambodia?
    - Authorizing the CIA to encourage coups in various countries
    - Operation Condor
    - Various policies which deliberately calculated civilian casualties in the bombing in Vietnam.

    All in all, I say: Dig the bastard up and piss on his remains. Drag Kissinger's sorry arse off to the Hague and lock him up until we can piss on his remains too.
  12. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    23 Dec '11 13:28
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Where does Nixon rank on "foreign policy achievements"?
    Nixon's rapproachment with China ranks as one of the great diplomatic coups in American history.

    We may have problems with the way China runs its economy (I certainly do), but it beats the heck out of having them as an enemy.
  13. 27 Dec '11 01:58 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    After the revolutionary war.
  14. 27 Dec '11 02:03
    Originally posted by utherpendragon
    Where does Nixon rank on "foreign policy achievements"?
    Mixed. Opening trade with China - good. Trying to bomb Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia into the stone ages - bad. Helping thugs depose a democratically elected President - bad. Brokering the end of the Yom Kippur War - good.
  15. 27 Dec '11 03:22 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by Kunsoo
    Mixed. Opening trade with China - good. Trying to bomb Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia into the stone ages - bad. Helping thugs depose a democratically elected President - bad. Brokering the end of the Yom Kippur War - good.
    Dare I say, "neocon"?

    Nixon, as all other presidents, seem to fall into the, "I'm God", delusion. Of course, its not hard to do with all that unchecked Executive power at his disposal.